The reading passage describes the bene ts of deforestation, while the lecture oppose to

that, focusing on the drawbacks of this practice. The reading shows emphasizes the opportunities
for economical growth and the expansion of comercial farming. The autor believes that taking
down rainforests implies on expansion of surrounding cities, allowing more space for living. That
menas, more land, more possibility of developments areas. Opposing to that, the lecture brings
the problem of sustainability and indigenas displaced, leading to their relocation in the towns
periphery, favoring the spread of diseases.
Another closure, according to the text, is the bene t of improving commercial farming,
increasing food o er in the same proportion as population growth. In controversy, the lecture
highlight the soil poverty brought with its vulnerability to rain exposure, washing away nutrients
from the soil. If this happens, the farming activity would not provide as much food as its plan,
being necessary more deforestation.
Last, based on the idea of dollar investment for rainforest preservation and the permission
of carbon dioxide emission, the autor argument is that if deforestation is allowed, the amount of
carbon dioxide emitted would be lessened. In consequence, the global warming gets better. On
the other hand, the lecture makes it clear that one of the causes of global warming is the high
emission of carbon dioxide in response of rainforest devastation. In conclusion, these are the
reason why the reading passage and the lecture are opposites speaking of deforestation.
ff
fi
fi